- From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:50:54 +0100
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Cc: Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, "lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk" <lazarus@lazaruscorporation.co.uk>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Yes, you are right - but the URN schemes are, at least in my opinion, kind of a dead branch of the URI space, because they cannot be upgraded to be dereferenceable.
Martin
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>> The difference to ISBN is that for ISBN codes, there is no canonical URI
>> schema defined (at least to my knowledge).
>
> There is urn:isbn (RFC 3187 [1]) which allows you to mask any ISBN in a URI.
>
> [1] http://www.iana.org/go/rfc3187
>
> /Lars
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 14:51:25 UTC